Spectrum of the Left

I've been working on a project recently (more details will come when/if it really develops into something), and one of the little obsessions I got caught in was making a goofy little chart to keep the main leftist tendencies clear and to help newcomers quickly find where they might want to first explore.  All the little decisions really sucked me in, so I thought I should share.  Let me know what you think!

Click here to view the chart.

The Art of the Slogan: Socialism or Barbarism

Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to Socialism or regression into Barbarism. -- Rosa Luxemburg, The Junius Pamphlet (The Crisis of German Social Democracy)

Socialism or Barbarism, There Is No Third Way!

This slogan, as many great radical left slogans, comes from the turmoil of the early 20th Century (1915 is the first time we see a form of it in print which is quoted at the top of this post).  With the rise of large proletarian populations in capitalist nations across Europe came the rise of revolutionary parties and the art of leftist sloganeering with them.

This slogan has proven legs, and at it has, at its heart, a very important meaning.

Ecosocialism or barbarism:  There is no third way! -- Slogan of Climate & Capitalism

 Why It Is Easy to Misunderstand

So isn't this just propaganda equating capitalists with barbarians and calling socialism the only viable alternative?

Not quite, although many radical leftists probably could sign on to such perspectives, but it means something much more interesting

Capitalism was still relatively young at this time, and already it had several recessions.  Even capitalists had a hard time seeing how capitalism could last forever, and Karl Marx had laid down what still holds as the greatest criticism of a social system by defining contradictions within the capitalist idea which would inevitably lead to its end.

10,000 strong Communist rally in Union Square, New York, 08/01/1935

While social democratic reforms helped save capitalism for a time, it is still clear that no economic situation will last forever.  The question, then, is what comes next?

The radical left made it very clear:  capitalism will collapse for good one day, but what could replace it if not socialism?  Barbarism.  Primitive accumulation (think slavery, seizure, etc.) by the strong, fascism, relapse into feudalism (more of an issue in the world of 1915 when many countries were still feudal), etc.

Some Material on Leftist Perspectives of ISIS

Meanwhile a major barrier to the spread of the ISIS plague to Lebanon is Hezbollah, a hated enemy of the US and its Israeli ally. And to complicate the situation further, the US and Iran now share a justified concern about the rise of the Islamic State, as do others in this highly conflicted region. -- Noam Chomsky, ISIS and Our Times

So ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, also known as ISIL and IS) has been capturing headlines as it continues to wage its reactionary, islamo-fascist war.  Now that radical left groups in the region are making great strides in fighting ISIS, and now that these groups might be getting help from NATO, another reactionary force that could eliminate the leftist groups as well, it seems a great time to understand the situation and figure out how we support the fight against both islamo-fascists and imperialists.

The radical left PKK anti-ISIS fighters.

Here are a few radical leftist videos and articles on ISIS that might interest the curious:

• Video:  Professor Chomsky on ISIS
• Article:  Kurdish Anarchist Join Fight Against ISIS
• Article:  Declaration from the Communists on Kobane, IS, and Imperialism
• Article: These Remarkable Women Are Fighting ISIS. It’s Time You Know Who They Are 

Really Existing Socialism

What "Really Existing Socialism" Refers To

This is the phrase most commonly used on the left to describe societies like the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China under Mao, Revolutionary Cuba, etc.

Other people might use other terms like degenerated workers state, state-capitalism, Marxist-Leninism, etc.  For this site, I will (almost) always use the term "really existing socialism" to refer to these countries and systems as different as they are from each other.

Wait, So the Soviet Union Society Was Socialism?

Well, that's a weakness of the phrase.  Most people on the radical left agree that socialism never really existed in the Soviet Union or related societies.  However, many people in the revolution and the ruling parties either did or still are valiantly fighting to build socialism.

There is no trace of such Communism—that is to say, of any Communism—in Soviet Russia. In fact, the mere suggestion of such a system is considered criminal there, and any attempt to carry it out is punished by death. -- Emma Goldman, There Is No Communism In Russia

Leftist critics of really existing socialist countries sometimes have points in history where a revolution seemed to have stopped pushing for socialism, if they think it ever truly fought for socialism at all.

Benefits of Using the Phrase

I personal will use it because I think it does the following well:

• Parallels the phrase "really existing capitalism"
• Emphasizes historical pressures
• Almost everyone (left, right, and center) knows what you are talking about 

Hindsight:  Two Views on the USSR From Two Leftists

Micheal Parenti has a long (but fascinating) lecture about the fall of the Soviet Union which might give some perspective on what really existed. 

Noam Chomsky with a different view.

10 Things to Never Tell a Radical Leftist

Go ahead, ask me about Dave Grohl one more time...

The People's Revolutionary Democratic Clickbait:
(split from The Revolutionary People's Democratic Clickbait whose clickbait has become revisionist!)

1.  "Communism is great on paper, but it goes against human nature!"

2.  "Anarchy is running around shooting everybody."  Alt:  "True capitalism is anarchism."

3.  "Che Guevara... that's the guy from Nirvana, right?"

The hell did you just say?

4.  "So if you hate capitalism, why don't you get rid of your TV?" 
Alt:  "Why don't you share all your money with me?"

5.  "So did you vote for Obama?"

6.  "Communism... like Hitler and stuff?"

7.  "You're such a liberal."

8.  "I'm a socialist, like FDR."

9.  "If you love it so much move to Russia!"

10.  "Yeah, you'll grow out of that."

Bonus 11.  Mentioning any unshared opinion on George Orwell.

The Gulag Argument: Common Leftist Responses to Repression in Really Existing Socialism

The Gulag Argument

Typically, the biggest issue people have with really existing socialist countries is the Gulag (or the Stasi, or censorship, or any of the famous repressive practices by these societies). The criticism goes something like this:

Communism is so focused on equality and the group that individual rights get ignored. Further, since groups are made up of individuals, the group ends up without rights anyway. You’ve robbed Peter to pay Paul.

I'm going to show the two most common counter-arguments.  The first is a more left-communist or anarchist argument which seeks to condemn these actions by really existing socialist countries.  The second is from defenders of really existing socialist countries.

Note:  this is sidestepping a common reaction to such an argument on the left which is to point out the worldwide mass murder, support of genocide, incarceration, and political repression committed by the capitalist West.  While important to consider, that doesn't actually address the argument above directly.

The Left-Commies and Anarchists Cry Out:  You're Blaming the Wrong Thing

Freedom is always freedom for dissenters. -- Rosa Luxemburg

Libertarian strains on the left are just as (in fact more) anti-Gulga, anti-Stasi, etc. as anyone.  They often point out that anarchists and left-communists were often targets of state repression in these societies.

Their counter-argument insists that it was the mechanism of the state (they often point to the philosophy of Lenin as a right-wing deviation from the norm of the left at the time of the Russian Revolution) as the problem in really existing socialist societies.  These states were running a state-capitalist society (an economy based on the exploitation of workers, just with the state owning the means of production).

By eliminating poverty (capitalists probably celebrate poverty as the "freedom to starve") and pursuing "actual" communism, you evade the Gulag of the USSR and the extreme poverty, imperialist invasion, genocide, and social oppression so pervasive in the capitalist West.

The "Tankie" Response:  History Will Absolve Me

Condemn me, it does not matter: history will absolve me. -- Fidel Castro, History Will Absolve Me

So defenders of the really existing socialist societies ("tankies" as they are lovingly and not-so lovingly called) have two points in their argument:  the West has lied about the true nature of the Gulag and other "repressive" elements of these societies, and what repression did exist were required to defend the real gains of these revolutions against the ongoing military and economic violence of the capitalist nations.

A lot of scholarship goes into refuting capitalist claims of different "crimes" of socialist countries.  Not all of them can be listed here, but a very popular one is Another View of Stalin by Ludo Martens, the work of Grover Furr, and Dongping Han to name a few.  Because the West has so much to gain by taking these either wholly fabricated or greatly exaggerated stories as historical fact, it follows that the capitalist West would promote this as the gospel truth.

Still, many will agree that political repression occurred and that, while struggled for, "communism" was never reached.  That being said, these societies had massive gains in the quality of life for the citizens, progressed these societies out of poverty and feudalism and fear of Western imperialism, and if they have ended, were done so against the democratic wishes of the people and only with disastrous consequences.

An uncommon (but not unheard of) sentiment among these defenders goes along the lines of:  there were prisons, there were executions, there was not tolerance of dissenting views, and that is because the revolutions defended themselves and the gains were worth the necessary sacrifices.

Why the Word "Communism" Is so Misunderstood

A Brief Historical Explanation

The word "communism" has seen things.  The term, still relatively new, was used for over a hundred years in the propaganda of the most powerful countries in human history (in one corner the USA with much of Western Europe, and in the other corner the USSR, the PRC, and allied forces).

Public (and private) schooling in capitalist countries do little to allow the left to tell its side of the story, and the owners of the biggest media companies make money by selling ads, but ads don't work as well after media depicting a leftist message (not for lack of interest in leftism, but in those viewers lack of interest in what is being advertised -- not to mention those media billionaires kind of like capitalism).

So, really, it wouldn't make sense if "communism" wasn't a confusing word.

This Is a Big Problem for the Radical Left...

... because communism is what the Radical Left is all about.

When you can sit down and use a word that one person thinks means an all-power state and another thinks the end of the state, when one person thinks the end of surplus and another thinks the end of scarcity, when one person thinks imprisonment without trial and another thinks true democracy... that word is going to seem a little vague to most people.

Barack Obama is a socialist. -- Sarah Palin

Common Exceptions

The definition I gave is what almost any radical leftist will mean by "communism."  There are, of course, exceptions.  There are also a couple of (sloppy) strategies the left has used to cope with the exceptions and the general misunderstanding.

The most common exception happens when a radical leftist is talking to a non-radical.  Non-radicals often call societies similar to the Soviet Union "communist."  Radical leftists might use that word in that sense to simplify things or just by accidental mirroring of language.  Many communists also defend these societies (China during Mao's leadership for example) anyway, and so clarifying the mistake seems beside the point.

Another exception occurs most often in anarchist circles or when anarchists are talking with communists.  Anarchists might prefer the term "anarchism" to describe "communism" to emphasize the differing beliefs about dealing with the state after revolution.

Two Strategies Or:  What Little Progress Has Been Made for (C/c)larity

One common strategy to clarify whether "communism" is being used to describe the political goal or societies like the Soviet Union is this:

• Lower case "c" for the political goal (e.g. "communism is stateless")
• Upper case "C" for a society like the Soviet Union (e.g. "Communist Russia")

It is clear this doesn't help when starting a sentence with the word or when speaking, but this is one strategy that you will see, especially on the internet.

Another strategy is to use the phrase "really existing socialism" to describe the historical experiences of the Soviet Union, Revolutionary China, etc.

The Still Misunderstood and Misused Word

So the word "(C/c)ommunism" is used (especially in the West or among many non-leftists) to describe Soviet Union style societies, tribal societies (what the radical left calls "primitive communism"), fascism (which communists hate more than capitalism), welfare programs, work safety regulations, progressive tax, secularism, and the list goes on.  Almost as a rule:  if a Western politician didn't like something during the past hundred years or so, it was labelled "communism."

What Do Radical Leftists Mean by the State?

What Is the State to the Radical Left?

The radical left typically considers the "state" to be a governing body that one class uses to force citizens of the state (the members of other classes) to behave in certain ways.  So for radical leftists, a truly democratic society, where all people are included (or able to choose to participate) in decision making and where all people have equal footing when dealing with these decisions, would not have a state, even if there are laws and a military (most consider these necessary evils, but, fingers crossed, a revolutionary society might gradually make these irrelevant).

Why Is the State Important to the Radical Left?

This question about the state and what to do with it after seizing power defines the split between anarchists and communists.

Anarchists fight for a communist society, but they believe that the state should be dissolved (in other words fully democratized) immediately after the revolution succeeds in toppling the previous regime (or very soon after).  Anarchists will very often point to repression in really existing socialist societies (like the USSR or Revolutionary Cuba) as evidence that the state is dangerous to keep around, even in the hands of leftists.

Many communists will point to the few instances where revolutionary anarchism has taken place (the Paris Commune, the Spanish Revolution, parts of the Russian Revolution) and talk about their inability to defend themselves against attack, something anarchists often agree with and have worked on solving.

Communists, on the other hand, usually fall somewhere near the idea of having a "dictatorship of the proletariat" to transition from a capitalist state, through a socialist state, and into a communist lack of state.  While that term sounds scary (with the word "dictatorship" conjuring visions of the worst assumptions about communism), it merely means that the government should be under the control of working people, a democracy for and by them, to complete tasks that lay can the groundwork for communism.  A dictatorship of the proletariat is considered socialist, because there is still a state and probably some leftover class divisions, but the economy is placed under democratic control of the workers.

In striving for socialism, however, we are convinced that it will develop into communism and, therefore, that the need for violence against people in general, for the subordination of one man to another, and of one section of the population to another, will vanish altogether since people will become accustomed to observing the elementary conditions of social life without violence and without subordination.  --  Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution

Compromise on "the State" for Unity or Not?
 
There are other, less general philosophies on the radical left (left communism, council communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and others) which meet somewhere in the middle between the enormous labels of communist and anarchist, and they typically have positions on the state which seems a little communist for an anarchist and a little anarchist for a communist.

That being said, some radical leftists consider the differences between anarchists and communists to be too great, making unity on the radical left impossible.  Indeed, some revolutions and conflicts have seen anarchists and communists fighting each other (a fun fact to enliven any Left Unity group meeting).

Still others are optimistic and see a lot of good to be learned from both sides and believe that any mass movement will require the best of both to succeed (only to be called a Stalinist by anarchist comrades and a liberal by communist comrades).

What Do Radical Leftists Mean By Class?

What Is Class to the Radical Left?

A "class" is a group of people who have similar roles in the workplace, specifically in creating valuable goods.

How Is This Informative?

On the radical left, the word "class" isn't discussed in the same gradual levels, the way many people talk about economic classes.  We don't typically think about classes like "lower class," "lower middle class," "middle class," and so on.   Almost all radical leftists define classes in capitalism (our main focus of study) in two groups called the "proletariat" (the hip word for workers, most likely your class) and the "bourgeoisie" (the soft-g and the vowel crowded word for bosses).

The Bourgeoisie (not borg-ee-oh-ee-see, in case you're having problems)

The bourgeoisie are said to own the "means of production" under capitalism.  That means that individuals, by purchasing or inheriting, come to control the things that, when a worker runs the equipment or station, produce value and wealth (factories, restaurants, construction companies, etc.)

The term "bourgeois" can be confusing beyond pronunciation because it is another term with a specific meaning from the left and a looser definition otherwise.  The word comes from a group of middle class merchants under feudalism who started the revolution of capitalism (first in Britain with the factory system).  After the series of political revolutions that ousted Kings and weakened aristocracies, the bourgeois state became established in its few forms, favoring the republican model in the West.  So, in capitalism, the bourgeois are the wealthiest and most powerful.

Note:  many (usually non-leftists) use "bourgeois" as a term for uncultivated taste (from the mouths of aristocrats who were forever dumbfounded by the way these capitalist spent their new wealth).

Suffering engenders passion; and while the prosperous blind themselves, or go to sleep, the hatred of the unfortunate classes kindles its torch at some sullen or ill-constituted mind, which is dreaming in a corner, and sets to work to examine society. The examination of hatred is a terrible thing. --  Victor Hugo, Les Misérables

So Who Are the Proletariat?  Why Are They so Special?

Probably you.  Proletarians are generally defined as people who have to sell their labor to gain money in capitalism.  The radical left thinks that since the proletariat makes all of the value and does all of the work, they shouldn't be dictated to by any boss (certainly not one that the workers didn't elect and who the workers can't recall at any time).  Often times, fear of losing your job keeps people in line, as most people couldn't imagine how they would afford missing out on a single week's paycheck.

Bosses make more money by paying workers less, so that most workers get paid just enough to come back into work to make the boss more profit.  One of the things pointed out in the Communist Manifesto, however, is that capitalism is building the foundation of its own demise.  Wealth concentrates through buyouts and acquisitions and closures, shrinking the amount of people that own the businesses.  The number people who work for a living increases as fewer and fewer people own private property, and the workers benefit from a change in society where they are put in charge of the lives and workplaces and governments.

I Can Think of People Who Aren't Either Bourgeois or Proletarian

It is important to remember that very few radical leftists believe that economies are as simple as workers and bosses. Every day, situations change.  What is important for leftists are class interests, because the different ways you interact with the economy and government, the different policies you'll support in both.  Many people don't work in factories but still share class interests with factory workers.  Underpaid teachers, custodians, drivers, etc. are all often seen as proletarian on the radical left.

Sometimes, other terms are used (like "lumpenproletariat," “labor aristocracy,” and "petit-bourgeoisie" among others) to define a position in capitalism more finely, but “proletariat” and “bourgeoisie” are seen as the most important for understanding how capitalism works and are also perhaps the only universal class terms on the radical left.

There Is Always an Exception

There are some people that don't emphasize classic working class proletarians as the revolution base (either generally or in a particular place and time).  These arguments are highly charged on the left and break with an argument for revolution that has permeated the radical left since it began.

Regardless, few would seriously argue that strictly proletarians can revolt and lead alone.  For example, indigenous populations in Central and South America (the EZLN, the election of Chavez, etc.) have been crucial members of radical left and broad left coalitions for fighting capitalism and building a more equal, safe, and healthy society.

What Do Radical Leftists Mean By Private Property? (and why do you want to abolish it?)

What Is Private Property to the Radical Left?

The radical left uses the words "private property" to describe ownership of the economy under capitalism.  Let's break down the words for simplicity, in reverse order for clarity.

Property:  anything that can combine raw material and labor to create value or the raw material itself.

Private:  owned by individuals or small groups of owners who have final say in how the property is used (within the law, most of the time) without any means of recourse for the workers or affected communities (again, as long as activity is within the law or the bribes came early and often).

To be a radical leftist means seeking to abolish private property as defined above.

Wait, What?  Abolish Property?  I Don't Want to Share Everything

The proletarian liberates himself by abolishing competition, private property, and all class differences. --  Frederick Engels, The Principles of Communism

Most people think of personal possessions when they hear the phrase "private property" (in their defense, that seems like what those two words should mean stuck together).  So when you hear us say, “Abolish private property!” we mean let's let the workers run their own affairs democratically with input and collaboration with the community.  Deciding together, and even electing their own leaders and managers if they see fit.

So you can stop worrying about sharing your toilet paper with anyone who asks (although it rarely comes up, takes a second, and it's the right thing to do).

But This Boss Earned His Way

Many people who own businesses, especially ones they built themselves, have worked incredibly hard to succeed.  No doubt.  No question.  When radical leftists argue that business owners exploit workers, business owners sometimes think we dismiss the work they had to do.  We don't.  Many people have met or had bosses that worked alongside employees, sometimes harder or longer.  So how can we still believe in abolishing private property?

Hard work does not mean you can disregard the workers.  People have to make money to eat and house and take care of themselves and their dependents, and people rarely have the wealth or opportunity to start a successful business.  So workers give a set amount of labor, they are always paid back less and usually just enough to make by or worse.  And no matter how difficult financing a start-up or finding talented workers or finally paying off all the debt was, no one has the right to pollute without seeking consent of anybody, and leaving communities to clean up, if they are lucky enough to be able to, the mess of the private property owner.

How, When, and in What Order Are We Abolishing?

The radical left thinks a government cannot be democratic when a small minority can control society with enormous wealth.  Private property leads to the inevitable gap between rich and poor in capitalism, and that means in leads to the lack of democracy in society.  So the radical left all agrees we should abolish private property, but we don't all agree on how to abolish private property, at what point during the revolution, and in what order.

As for how to abolish private property, everything has been done from union's running out the bosses and running the factories themselves, using governments to start land reform, gift economies, command economies, etc.

Some people seek to experience life without private property right now.  Squatters fix up abandoned buildings and live for free, some people start collectively ran enterprises.  For most people, though, such adventures are romantic but do not fix the problem for everyone.  The Bolsheviks pursued worker direct democracy (in units called Soviets) during and just after the Russian Revolution before pursuing state management and ownership.

And, of course, there is the issue of order.  As you can imagine, many radical leftists would love to see private property abolished and democratized all at once and as fast as possible.  Other ideas have been put forward, though, such as seizing only the major bulwarks of the economy, allowing consumer goods, artisan shops, and the like to exist in a market while the government controls the largest parts.  Many actual revolutions of the radical left begin with land reform along with a gradual increase in social services before collectivizing (sometimes forced, sometimes voluntarily) other sectors.

Property Is Not Your Comrade, We Are!

Property is theft! -- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, What is Property?

"Abolish private property!" and the always popular (above mentioned) "Property is theft!" call against the rich controlling society and their employees as dictators.

What Is Communism?

What Is Communism?

"Communism" is a political and economic situation with no state or class division and where goods are given out freely to whoever needs them and made freely by whoever will make them.

A communist society is the end goal of communists and anarchists alike (some think we need a few more stops along the way than others).  Communists and anarchists who believe this change requires a revolution make up the radical left.

Seem a Little Idealistic?

Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.  -- Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Communist Manifesto

Defining communism alone will not do the radical left justice.  There are many good reasons so many have bravely struggled and given their lives in pursuit of communism as a goal.  Scroll to the bottom of the article to find more definitions to see exactly what we mean when we want to abolish the state and eliminate class.  We seek a radical democracy unknowable under capitalism and the state, and we believe an orderly and productive society requires neither capitalism or the state.

There are a few immediate and valid concerns most people have when hearing this definition (like how anything would get done if you could just get free booze and free cable), but some of the greatest minds of the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries have considered these questions and that's how they made up the richest tradition in political philosophy -- the radical left!

If You Think the Word "Communism" Is Confusing, You Are Right!

Here is a little insight into how it got so confusing and a few things that have been done to fix it. 

If Communism Is Still Unclear for You

You will find a definition like this all over the internet, but people still scratch their heads and ask, "okay, so what is communism?"  If you are feeling that way, that is common.  I added some links at the bottom that might clear up some confusion (an ever growing list).

Other Terms to Help You Out

Many of the terms used to describe communism (like "state," "class," and "abolition of private property") have very specific meanings (and some have several specific meanings) amongst the radical left.  Because of this, many people that are not radical leftists tend to think of these words a bit differently.  So let's refine what we mean a little!

• What Do Radical Leftists Mean by the State?
• What Do Radical Leftists Mean By Class?  
• What Do Radical Leftists Mean By Private Property? (and why do you want to abolish it?) 
• Wondering about countries like the USSR and Cuba?